Chemo Forced on Connecticut Teen Against Her Will

a reply to: Jamie1

I agree with you however this isn't the first time something like this has happened.

Nebraska court rules 16-year-old girl not mature enough for abortion

Roe V Wade went out the window with that teen as well.

In your OP the state is forcing a treatment that they believe is the only way to save her life in the other OP the state forced her to have a child which endangered her life.

It is a crazy world.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

I agree with you, effectiveness is not the point, her choice is. I am against this.

a reply to: Grimpachi

In both examples the State should have no say, and it should be up to the parents after consulting with their child.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: infinityorder

Rape is sexual in nature.

I am done with this discussion, if you all want to seriously act like this is anything close to rape then have fun.
There are plenty of reasons and arguments we can go into about why this is or isn't wrong.
Comparing it to her being raped is not one of them if we want to talk about this rationally.

It is a form of psychological rape, you are done because you know you are wrong.

I spelled it out as stated clearly by psychology, rape is not about sex, it is about power, and enforcing ones will over anothers body.

Dont be mad at the truth, embrace it, change your thinking.

Look into it, rape is about power, not sec. This is literally psychology 101.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Jamie1

I agree with you however this isn't the first time something like this has happened.

Nebraska court rules 16-year-old girl not mature enough for abortion

Roe V Wade went out the window with that teen as well.

In your OP the state is forcing a treatment that they believe is the only way to save her life in the other OP the state forced her to have a child which endangered her life.

It is a crazy world.

The problem is the presupposition by the State that they a) have the authority, and b) have superior competency to determine what's best for a child.

The State has demonstrated repeatedly that it lacks competency. Worse, it's a lawyer/judge who is making life and death decisions. A lawyer who is not an expert in medicine, but must rely on a 3rd party social worker and 3rd party doctors to tell her what they think is medically correct.

Meanwhile, the parent and child are unable to pay an expert witness $50,000 to write up an expert report and testify to the harmful effects of chemo.

Totally draconian and one sided. The State makes the decision, and the State pays for the experts to testify against the girl and her mother.

a reply to: Jamie1

I think if more people under stood what chemo actually does maybe they would understand.

Chemotherapy, literally kills every cell in the bady that is dividing.

Brain cells during cell mitosis are dead. Bone cells in mitosis are dead. All cells in the entire body, even the ones dividing to heal a bruise or a scratch or a scrape die.

It is poison.

The thought is, cancer divides faster than regular cells, so the hope is it kills the cancer before it kills your organs and you.....

This should not be forced on anyone. I have seen what this does to folks, it is at least as bad as death.

At least in death you dont suffer anymore.

a reply to: infinityorder

Yes the power to do what you want to some one, not the power to save their live.
This is about providing some one a medical procedure that more then likely will save her live not ruin it.

How hard is it for her to get a different doctor? The doctor is the one who prescribes the chemo, after all. She should be free to choose a doctor that she is comfortable with.

random thought - at 17 you can join the military with your parents' permission and die for your country, but you can't refuse chemo. Just doesn't make sense.

I'm sure there's a lot about this we don't know, and if we had ALL the information it would be something one could form a sure opinion on. Without all the information it's anybody's guess what the real story is. After all, this IS major media that's handing us this morsel to distract us from......what?

originally posted by: infinityorder
a reply to: Jamie1

I think if more people under stood what chemo actually does maybe they would understand.

Chemotherapy, literally kills every cell in the bady that is dividing.

Yes, and some cancers it does next to nothing to improve survival rate. This particular cancer it works, very well.

The point is not effectiveness, it's the State forcing it's will on people.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: infinityorder

Yes the power to do what you want to some one, not the power to save their live.
This is about providing some one a medical procedure that more then likely will save her live not ruin it.

The entire premise of Roe v Wade is that the 4th Amendment privacy protection gives a woman protection from the State imposing or preventing her from getting medical procedures.

How exactly does the State even determine this young girl's medical condition without violating her 4th Amendment rights to privacy?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

For the State to even make a determination about her medical condition her privacy rights would have been violated.

a reply to: Jamie1

Good point. And if Roe gives a 16yo the right to choose an abortion, why not this choice? Clearly they think a 16yo IS competent.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: infinityorder

Yes the power to do what you want to some one, not the power to save their live.
This is about providing some one a medical procedure that more then likely will save her live not ruin it.

Or ruin beyond any comprehension the life they have left.

The 3 folks I saw die while on kemo went from basically fine to the walking dead the day after their first chemo session, it only got worse with time.

My cousin that lived, lived much better with cancer after he stopped chemo, he had energy again, he got to play again, and the cancer went into remission as soon as his energy returned.

Not saying the chemo kept him sick, but it obviously made him sicker....by several factors.

Later on in life he told me he would have rather died than took it in the first place.

They literally go from fine strong happy to lifeless depressed and pail in one treatment.

Have you ever seen this first hand?

After chemo they are bedridden for days, no wonder their bodies cant fight the cancer, it is dying.

a reply to: Jamie1

I never disagreed with you. It should be their choice in both cases.

However, if the girl died because the parents put her on some pseudo scientific treatment that did nothing the parents should face the same prosecution as other parents where the children died because they believed in faith healing.

If it works then it is win win.

To be overruled At 17, and with her parents fully supporting her decision, is shameful. Chemotherapy indeed, and based solely on statistics and dubious medical opinion. 80% is a very long way from certainty.

Rape is exactly what this is, nothing less.

a reply to: Grimpachi

If the girl was 7, I'd agree. She is 17, and no one mentioned faith healing that I saw. She is old enough that the State says she is of sound mind to make decisions about her body and seek an abortion, why is she not of sound mind for this?

originally posted by: stormbringercompanion
To be overruled At 17, and with her parents fully supporting her decision, is shameful. Chemotherapy indeed, and based solely on statistics and dubious medical opinion. 80% is a very long way from certainty.

Rape is exactly what this is, nothing less.

If I was her friend I would try to convince her to seek Chemo, but I would not violate her rights and force it on her. Chemo works for some cancers, this is one of them.

a reply to: Jamie1

The problem is the presupposition by the State that they a) have the authority, and b) have superior competency to determine what's best for a child.

They have .

The State has demonstrated repeatedly that it lacks competency.

When . Please make it relate to this case .

3rd party doctors to tell her what they think is medically correct.

You mean 3rd party , as in neutral . So neutral expert opinions by doctors , you know the experts in this kind of treatment .Ahh what would they know .


Look you cant cure stupid , that's where the state has stepped in . Alternative treatments . Lets drink some green tea ,cut out dairy and a few drops of magic oil and live to the ripe old age of NINETEEN .

Hopefully one day she will have a couple of kids rattling around her legs . lets ask then if the right decision was made .

And to those who have said the state has done this for money . REALLY . Have a long hard look in the mirror .

I feel better now .

I have not seen this brought up, what about when she turns 18 and stops getting chemo mid-treatment?

a reply to: Jamie1

Fine, perfect example of a rational argument as to why this is wrong.

I agree that this does violate the rights she has, but I am a dirty liberal communist socialist ( yes I know they contradict) and don't mind the state putting up a fight for a life of 17 year old kid if we have the means to do it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Jamie1

Good point. And if Roe gives a 16yo the right to choose an abortion, why not this choice? Clearly they think a 16yo IS competent.

Based on this ruling, a judge could determine that a 17-year old will have a happier life if she had a baby and deny her from having an abortion. Or a judge could rule that an abortion may be harmful to her emotionally or physically.

This ruling violates the entire basis of Roe v Wade, which is based on a woman and her doctor, not the state, determining what's in her best interest.

In this case the State took legal custody of her in order to force her to undergo chemo.

Should the State be allowed to take custody of a child and force her to have a gender reassignment at 17 because the State feels that will "ensure" her of having a long and happy life?

Very serious ramifications with this decision.